JUDGMENT Kuldip Chand Sood, J.:- This revision petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure is directed against the orders made by learned District Judge, Kinnaur civil Division at Rampur, dated 18th April, 2000. 2. It appears, respondent Geeta Devi filed a petition before the learned District Judge, Kinnaur Civil Division at Rampur, for the custody of her minor daughter Kumari Reena from the parents of her deceased husband being mother and natural guardian. 3. The skeleton facts are: 4. Geeta Devi, hereinafter referred to as the "mother", was married to Gopal Dass in May, 1995. This marriage was contracted without taking parents of Gopal Dass or Surat Ram father and Rup Dassi mother, into confidence (hereinafter referred to as the grand-parents). Out of the wed lock Reena was born to "mother" on 18th June, 1996. Gopal Dass met with an accident on 9th September, 1998 near Oddi in the Sub Division of Rampur and later succumbed to the injuries sustained by him in the accident. The case of the "mother" is that she lived in the matrimonial house till 3rd October, 1998 on which date she was turned out from the house without her daughter Reena. Thus the "mother" was deprived of the custody of her minor daughter. The grand- parents threatened the "mother" with dire consequences if she returned to the matrimonial house or claimed custody of her minor daughter. The "mother" went to live with her parents in her parental house. The "mother" requested the "grandparents" to return her minor daughter Reena back to her. The request was turned down. She was again threatened with dire consequences. 5. The "mother" filed an application under Sections 10 and 12 of the Guardian and Wards Act, 1890 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for the custody of Reena on the grounds that she being natural guardian is entitled to the custody of her minor daughter and welfare of child lies in living with "mother". This application in fact is under Section 25 of the Act which provides that if a ward leaves or is removed from the custody of a guardian of his person then the Court may if it is in the welfare of the ward, direct the return of the custody of the minor to the guardian. 6. The grand-parents resisted the petition. It was admitted that Gopal Dass was their son. 6. The grand-parents resisted the petition. It was admitted that Gopal Dass was their son. According to the grand-parents, Gopal Dass brought Kumari Reena, when she was about three months of age, to the house of the grand-parents and since then the grand-parents have been looking after and maintaining Kumari Reena. Gopal Dass, it is admitted, met with an accident and sustained fatal injuries on 9th September, 1998. The "grand-parents" claimed that they being grand- parents of the female child are entitled to the custody of Kumari Reena. It is alleged that the "mother" never looked after the child and is in no position to maintain her as she looks forward for her own maintenance to her father who live in two roomed house. It is the further case of the "parents" that the petition was filed by the "mother" only to grab the amount of compensation which was awarded to Kumari Reena by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. It is also alleged that in due course the ".mother" is likely to contract another marriage and Kumari Reena would suffer. The grand-father of Kumari Reena, it is maintained, is a School Teacher and can look after the welfare of the minor child and therefore, it will not be in the interest of Kumari Reena to give her custody to the "mother". Particularly when grand-parents can provide better education, food and clothes. 7. In the rejoinder the mother reiterated that it is she who looked after and brought-up Kumari Reena till 3rd October, 1998 when she was turned out of the house and separated from her minor by the grand- parents. It is further pleaded that the welfare of the child lies in the custody of her "mother". It is also maintained that the mother is having sufficient means to bring up and educate the child. The child cannot be deprived of motherly affection simply because respondent No.l who happens to be a teacher. It is alleged that grand-mother of Kumari Reena made a statement before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal that se does not have cordial relations wth her husband, grand-father of the minor, in these circumstances, the welfare of Kumari Reena is not safe in the hands of the grand-parents. 8. Learned District Judge found that Kumari Reena is less than four years of age. She was living with her mother till her father died in an accident. 8. Learned District Judge found that Kumari Reena is less than four years of age. She was living with her mother till her father died in an accident. He also took a view that as the respondents did not admit mother as the daughter-in-law, therefore, the welfare of the child does not lie in the custody of the grand-parents. Learned District Judge found that grand-parents have one son and two daughters. Both their daughters and son are having children and therefore, any vacuum in their life can be filled in with the other grand-children from daughters and son. Whereas the petitioner being an young widow has none else but Kumari Reena to look forward to have comfort and solace in life. He concluded that as the grand-parents denied the very relationship of husband and wife of their son with the "mother" and therefore they can have no genuine love and affection for Kumari Reena. 9. Relying upon Nirmal Jain v. State, AIR, Delhi 120, learned District Judge concluded that "interest of female child of 3-4 years in age definitely lay in residing with her mother and not with her grand- parents". He accordingly allowed the petition-and directed that the custody of minor Reena be handed over to the mother. 10. Aggrieved, the grand-parents are in this revision. 11. I have heard Mr. I.D. Bali, Senior Advocate and counsel for the "Parents" herein and Mr. V.D. Khidta, learned counsel for the respondent "mother". 12. There is no scope for dispute that the paramount consideration for the custody of child is the welfare of the child. No other consideration should way with the Court. The expression Welfare has a wide meaning which covers both material and physical well being, education, health, happiness and moral welfare of the child. (See. Rosy Jacob v. Jacob A. Chakramakkal, AIR 1973 SC 2090.) The Court has to take into consideration the age and sex of the minor, the background of the family, the capacity of the guardian, and no less important the wishes of the minor where such minor is of the are of discretion to express his or her preference. 13. In the present case, admittedly, Kumari Reena was born on 8th June, 1996. She was about three years of age when this petition was filed by the mother. 13. In the present case, admittedly, Kumari Reena was born on 8th June, 1996. She was about three years of age when this petition was filed by the mother. Section 17 of the Act provides that while considering who should be the guardian for minor the Court should invariably be guided by the law to which the minor is subject with due regard to the age, sex, and religion of the minor, capacity of the proposed guardian and his kinship to the minor. It is the case of the mother that after the death of her husband, she was forcibly turned out of the house without her minor daughter Kumari Reena which was retianed by the grand-parents. On the other hand, grand-parents maintain that-Kumari Reena was brought to the house by Gopal Dass, husband of the wife, when Reena was about three months of age and since then she had been living with the grand-parents. Section 25 of the Act provides remedy to a guardian for the custody of the minor if the minor ward leaves or is removed from the custody of such guardian. Section 25 reads: "25. Title of guardian to custody of ward. (1) If a ward leaves or is removed from the custody of a guardian of his person, the Court, if it is of opinion that it will be for the welfare of the ward to return to the custody of his guardian, may make an order for his return and for the purpose of enforcing the order may cause the ward to be arrested and to be delivered into the custody of the guardian. (2) For the purpose of arresting the ward, the Court may exercise the power conferred on a Magistrate of the first class by Section 100 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1882 (10 of 1882). (3) The residence of a ward against the will of his guardian with a person who is not his guardian does not of itself terminate the guardianship". 14. It is now well settled that refusal by person to deliver back child to its natural guardian, when asked to do so by latter, amounts to removal from the custody of the guardian and such guardian can approach the Court under Section 25 of the Act. 14. It is now well settled that refusal by person to deliver back child to its natural guardian, when asked to do so by latter, amounts to removal from the custody of the guardian and such guardian can approach the Court under Section 25 of the Act. In these circumstances, the mother being natural guardian after the death of her husband was within her rights to approach the Court for the custody of her minor child. 15. Parties, admittedly, are Hindu. Section 6(a) of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act provides that the natural guardians of a Hindu minor, in respect of the minors person as well as minors property, in case of a boy or an unmarried girl, shall be father and after him the mother. The proviso to sub-section (a) of Section 6 clearly stipulates that the custody of minor who has not completed the age of five years shall ordinarily be with the mother. Section 5 of the Act provides further overriding the effect of this provision notwithstanding anything to the contrary in any other law. 16. A careful reading of these provisions make it clear that in the absence of father, mother is the natural guardian of Hindu Minor and ordinarily custody of a child irrespective of the presence of father should be with the mother. 17. Mr. Bali, learned Senior Counsel for the "grand-parents" strenuously urges that the wife is dependant on her father has no independent source of income and therefore, unable to maintain the child, whereas the grand-father being a school teacher can give proper education to minor and look after her needs. 18. In view of the express provisions of Section 6(a) of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, the custody of a minor, in the absence of the father, has to be with the mother unless it is shown for some reasons that mother is incompetent to act as guardian. The presumption is that the welfare of a minor child lies in the custody of a parent unless he/she is found to be unsuitable from the evidence on record. 19. Comparative better financial position of a grand-father cannot and should not deprive a mother, the natural guardian,, from the custody of her minor child. The presumption is that the welfare of a minor child lies in the custody of a parent unless he/she is found to be unsuitable from the evidence on record. 19. Comparative better financial position of a grand-father cannot and should not deprive a mother, the natural guardian,, from the custody of her minor child. There is nothing on record to show that the mother is not fit to be guardian of her child or for any other reason it will not be in the interest of Kumari Reenas welfare to be in the custody of her mother. Learned District Judge after appreciating the evidence on record concluded that the mother was in a better position, compared to the grand-parents, to take good care of the daughter. There is no good reason to over rule this finding. During the course of arguments it was stated by learned counsel for the "mother" that "mother" has now been employed in a school and earning sufficient wages to take good care of the minor. The conention of the grand- parents that Kumari Reena was living with them since she was three month old is displaced from the evidence of their own witness Tula Ram (RW-3) who stated in the cross-examination that the child is with the grand-parents for about three years and before that she was with the mother. This witness was examined on 6th April, 2000, meaning thereby it was only in the later part of the year 1997 that the child started living with the grand-parents. It is also the case of the mother that she along with the child was living with the grand-parents till her husband died. In the absence of father the Court would ordinarily accept the claim of the mother in preference to the claim of any other person for the custody of the child. As already discussed there is nothing in the evidence on record to suggest that mother, the natural guardian of the minor child, is not fit person to be the guardian of her daughter. 20. Taking into consideration the entirety of the circumstances, the welfare of the minor, her tender age which requires love and affection of the mother, it is only appropriate if the custody of the minor is restored to the mother. 21. 20. Taking into consideration the entirety of the circumstances, the welfare of the minor, her tender age which requires love and affection of the mother, it is only appropriate if the custody of the minor is restored to the mother. 21. This apart, I find that the present revision petition is not maintainable, in view of the provisions of Section 47 of the Act. Section 47 of the Act provides for an appeal against the orders made under Section 25 of the Act i.e. making or refusing to make an order for the return of a ward to the custody of his or her guardian. It also provides for an appeal against an order appointing or declaring or refusing to appoint or declare a guardian. In view of the specific provision for appeal the revision will not be maintainable. 22. There is no merit in this petition, the same is dismissed. No order as to costs. CMP No, 123 of 2000 No order in view of the order passed in the main matter. Interim order dated 6.10.2000 is vacated. The application is disposed of.